High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Family Court's order that refused a request to re-examine a witness, upholding the finding that the respondent committed fraud by appointing a new lawyer without relinquishing the previous advocate.
The original petition was dismissed with no order for re-examination of the witness.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/22ND JYAISHTA 1934 OP (FC).No. 786 of 2012 (R) --------------------------IA.NO.2096/2011 & 85/2012 IN OP.116/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA
PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN O.P.:
SABEENA BEEVI, AGED 37 YEARS D/O.ALIMA BEEVI CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU PARUTHIYIL MURI, KURIYODU (P.O.) NILAMEL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DIST. NOW RESIDING AT KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU CHERUKULAM (P.O.), CHUNDA, ANCHAL VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P.: ------------------------------SAJINA BEEVI D/O.NABEESA BEEVI, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU POREDOM (P.O.)CHADAYAMANGALAM KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(F.C.) 786 OF 2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF O.P.116/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA
EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF the AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.2096/11 IN O.P.116/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT KOTTARAKKARA
EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.2096/11 IN O.P.116/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA
EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.22.12.2011 O.P.(F.C.) 4233/11 OF THIS COURT.
EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.85/12 IN O.P.116/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUDGE
K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C.) No.786 of 2012 R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2012 .
JUDGMENT
K.T. Sankaran J.,
The petitioner is the fourth respondent in O.P. No.116 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara, filed by the respondent. (Hereinafter the parties are referred to in accordance with their rank in the Court below). Fourth respondent is the sisterin-law of the petitioner. All the four respondents engaged a lawyer, hereinafter referred to as the 1st lawyer. Thereafter, the first lawyer was changed and vakalath was given to the 2nd lawyer. A Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of PW1. The Commissioner gave notice to the 2nd lawyer. Meanwhile, the fourth respondent had engaged another lawyer, who is hereinafter called as
O.P.(F.C.) No.786 of 2012
the 3rd lawyer. The 3rd lawyer filed vakalath without getting a relinquishment letter or consent from the 2nd lawyer. The 4th respondent suppressed the fact that she had engaged another lawyer earlier and some how, got the permission of the Court to enable the 3rd lawyer to enter appearance.
was given to the 2nd lawyer. The 4th respondent says that her present lawyer, namely the 3rd lawyer, should have been given notice. The Commissioner having not given notice to the 3rd lawyer, it was submitted that the 4th respondent was denied an opportunity to cross-examine PW1.
O.P.(F.C.) No.786 of 2012
of 2011. A Division Bench of this Court permitted the fourth respondent to bring to the notice of the Court below, the facts which would disclose that no fraud was played on the Court. The fourth respondent filed I.A. No.85 of 2012 to review the earlier order. The Family Court considered all the contentions put forward by the parties, perused all the records and found that the appointment of the 3rd lawyer was improper and the petitioner was not entitled to get an opportunity to examine PW1 again. The Court held that the 2nd lawyer had not relinquished the vakalath and the appointment of the 3rd lawyer was improper. The relevant facts were suppressed before Court and the Court was made to believe that the 4th respondent wanted to engage a lawyer for the first time. Thus she got the permission to appoint the 3rd lawyer. The Court held that fraud was played on the Court.
Family Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order.
O.P.(F.C.) No.786 of 2012
:4:
No grounds are made out for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.
sd
K.T. SANKARAN,
(JUDGE)
sd
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)
dl/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere with the Family Court's finding that a fraud was played on the Court regarding the lawyer's appointment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sabeena Beevi
Sajina Beevi
K.T. Sankaran
M.L. Joseph Francis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
